Blood from a stone = minimal fuel
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
almost arriving with less than min fuel!
Ahhhh, the joys of goggles....
... no alternate required...
even the Kiwis up the road got CAT3 in AKL...
Darwin light failure with no backup? Why am I not surprised?
A380-800 driver is right...
Yes. Australia has a really stupid rule where, if the weather is fine and beaut and ground facilities suitable, the pilot in command can use his head about what fuel he carries. No need to spoon feed him as obviously happens elsewhere.
My 2c worth...
Last edited by AQIS Boigu; 8th Jun 2009 at 07:56. Reason: spell checker U/S
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago when the Concorde was still gracing the skies, Collins from Flying Magazine was given the opportunity to do the trip from LHR to JFK (I think) in the jump seat.
Approaching New York, their TOTAL fuel endurance at landing was calculated at six minutes and were cleared straight in from 86 miles out.
Collins jokingly asked what their alternate was, given that they couldn't even have conducted a go around without finding a REALLY good thermal.
The skipper replied, "We are cleared for 23R...our alternate is 23L"
Approaching New York, their TOTAL fuel endurance at landing was calculated at six minutes and were cleared straight in from 86 miles out.
Collins jokingly asked what their alternate was, given that they couldn't even have conducted a go around without finding a REALLY good thermal.
The skipper replied, "We are cleared for 23R...our alternate is 23L"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380-800,
What is your CASA approved Altn for Perth?
Don't forget most carriers O/S use a closer Altn than we are approved for.
[Payar lebur, Shenzen, Haneda etc!]
I personally want either, a funk hole, 2 runways, or a runway twice as long as I need [to land short or over
]
What is your CASA approved Altn for Perth?
Don't forget most carriers O/S use a closer Altn than we are approved for.
[Payar lebur, Shenzen, Haneda etc!]
I personally want either, a funk hole, 2 runways, or a runway twice as long as I need [to land short or over
]
A380-800 Driver,
No I don't. It should be left up to the PIC to decide.
AQIS,
The PIC should decide.
Are telling me or asking me? I do not think it's cool to run around on min fuel bla bla bla. By all means ask for my opinion but don't give me a lecture when you don't even know how I operate. Oh, by the way, you'll be pleased to know that I am waging a war on this very issue in my company.
If a 767 can't get "OF" the runway in DRW I'll either land on the cross-strip or on the remaining bit of 11/29. Pretty simple really. next?
Renurpp,
Shall I set Capt Eco Warrior onto him or shall you?
Zeebee,
I love it!
Bloggs- Just to clarify- Do you think that it is a good idea to have an alternate as mandatory irrespective of weather or not?
AQIS,
...well Capn Bloggs...I think common sense and airmanship would dictate that you should always carry fuel for another airfield (maybe except when you got two seperate runways)...that's at least the way I was brought up...no matter when I was flying a C206, Bongo, Dash8 or a widebody...those 200nm to Tindal won't make much of a difference to your fuel calculation...
you think it's cool to run around on min fuel but one day it might bite you in the arse...no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas... but the bosses will when you have to land on the Stuart Highway near that locator (can't remember its name) if a 767 for whatever reason can't get of the runway in Darwin...
If a 767 can't get "OF" the runway in DRW I'll either land on the cross-strip or on the remaining bit of 11/29. Pretty simple really. next?
Renurpp,
no company will question you on 2-3 tonnes more gas
Zeebee,
I love it!
Bloggs
Your closer to him/them than I am,
feel free
I don't at all agree with the current fuel ideas within our company. Having said that the best way to show them its wrong is to do exactly what they want and watch it turn to ****e, as it does/has.
Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.
Your closer to him/them than I am,
feel free I don't at all agree with the current fuel ideas within our company. Having said that the best way to show them its wrong is to do exactly what they want and watch it turn to ****e, as it does/has.
Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.
A380-800,
Understand all that. Arriving at a tin-pot joint like Perth certainly warrants alternate fuel but surely not a major 24/7 international hub like Darwin, run by the Defence Farce of Australia? 
Maybe the new head of CASA will put the eco-warriors back in their boxes by mandating at least "technical" alternates (now there's a term that has been in use in Oz for quite a while, by some at least, hey AQIS...) for all high-cap ops.
Bloggsie- Fair enough, but the PIC decision in this case may be good enough for single engine aircraft with a bang seat, but for commercial operations, where literally everything is backed up for unforeseeable/unlikely events, eg engine failures, weather minima, pilot incapacitation, autopilots, electrical systems etc, it seams odd that we have disparate fuel policices in this day and age. Having fuel to land on a back up bit of turf makes sense to me and I am a fan of the policy.
Maybe the new head of CASA will put the eco-warriors back in their boxes by mandating at least "technical" alternates (now there's a term that has been in use in Oz for quite a while, by some at least, hey AQIS...) for all high-cap ops.
RENURPP and Capn Bloggs...who you guys working for???
well...I was asking you and voicing my opinion using a potential scenario...
in a 737/320 maybe....in my previous post I was refering to a widebody...an overrun on 18/36 with its 1500m will make the front page of that NT paper...whilst a normal landing at Tindal won't...(has JQ/VB/QF ever diverted to Tindal at all???)
Thats the way...it is also policy at my company and not negotiable...and I fully agree with it..."I like..."
dont worry; never intended to do so...I am not going to lecture someone with 1800+ posts...got better things to do...
Are telling me or asking me?
I'll either land on the cross-strip or on the remaining bit of 11/29. Pretty simple really. next?
Fair enough, but the PIC decision in this case may be good enough for single engine aircraft with a bang seat, but for commercial operations, where literally everything is backed up for unforeseeable/unlikely events, eg engine failures, weather minima, pilot incapacitation, autopilots, electrical systems etc, it seams odd that we have disparate fuel policices in this day and age. Having fuel to land on a back up bit of turf makes sense to me and I am a fan of the policy.
...but dont give me a lecture...
...an overrun on 18/36 with its 1500m will make the front page of that NT paper...whilst a normal landing at Tindal won't...(has JQ/VB/QF ever diverted to Tindal at all???)
).
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darwin is run by Darwin International Airport.
The RAAF provides ATC.
Responsibility for lighting is a shared cost but managed by the airport operator.
AsA provides RFF and are responsible for emergency throwdown lighting.
I know this thread is about fuel. This is for info only.
The RAAF provides ATC.
Responsibility for lighting is a shared cost but managed by the airport operator.
AsA provides RFF and are responsible for emergency throwdown lighting.
I know this thread is about fuel. This is for info only.
Renurpp, the PiC is responsible for knowing what's available, but maybe that wasn't the answer you were going for? The PiC can only know what he's told, so if he's told via the AIP/Jepps that YPDN has electric lighting with standby power then he should reasonably expect that to be the case.
AerocatS2A
ATC advised portable lighting was being deployed, then some minutes later advised, "whoops we don't have any"
In the mean time a drum of two of fuel have dissapeared.I expect a response something like "thats DIA's responsibility, they told us they had some", which they may have.
Point being I would have thought ATC should be very aware of the facilities available to an aircraft, and I mean before time, not in the heat of the moment.
I think its time for the buck passing to continue
Last edited by RENURPP; 12th Jun 2009 at 01:01.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hot'n'spicy
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darwin et al
Back in '96 Darwin suffered what the met boys called a 'mini cyclonic event'. The rain and storms were totally unforecast at that intensity and it lasted for a period of 3-4 hrs. I was luckily watching from the ground at this time and the vis in the rain was lucky to be 10ft. From memory we recieved 200+ mm in this period. The tower was washed away, airport completely cut off by Rapid creek, the aids and and lights failed, all the choppers from the rigs declared pans and ended up in Bathhurst along with a 1000 lighties. Also with SFA fuel was Big Rat, Ansett and Scarenorth and all tubine operators jamming the tarmac at Tindal. I went to Bathhurst later to rescue some chopper pax and were those pilots PISSED. Cycle forwards to 2006? and following a massive series of lightning strikes, the gates were welded shut, the lights had failed (again) and Darwin ended with no radar feed for over a year.
So whats the lesson...
Tha airport is a dual user facility and suffers because of it. Plan for some inadequacy fuel before you depart.
An old timer said to me when I first got up here "if its 30 holding carry 60, and if its 60 carry an alternate"
All the flights were caught short by the light failure but all were flown by proffesionals to make the correct decision to divert or hold.
just my 2 cents.....
So whats the lesson...
Tha airport is a dual user facility and suffers because of it. Plan for some inadequacy fuel before you depart.
An old timer said to me when I first got up here "if its 30 holding carry 60, and if its 60 carry an alternate"
All the flights were caught short by the light failure but all were flown by proffesionals to make the correct decision to divert or hold.
just my 2 cents.....
I don't at all agree with the current fuel ideas within our company. Having said that the best way to show them its wrong is to do exactly what they want and watch it turn to ****e, as it does/has.
Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.
Most people ignore policy and the guru's walk around patting them sleves on the back. It is quite strange really.
And this works, as anybody working for QF in the early days of the "flyspot" charts can testify.
During a particularly heated period of "discussion" on the topic of "surplus fuel" (oil price shock, Part 2) a bunch of Captains made the point by carrying "flight plan fuel" to EGLL during northern winter.
Sticking strictly to "company policy", one 742 took three days and an overnight to get from Singapore to London. There were numerous en-route diversions, aeroplanes winding up in London/Gatwick, Prestwick, Manchester, Amsterdam, yada yada yada. with crews out of hours.
Costs (not to mention customer delay dissatisfaction complaints) went through the roof. A fuel stop ar EDDF is not a cheap exercise.
Surprise, surprise, a "slight reemphasis" on the matter of fuel orders followed.
As a matter of interest, not mentioned here is the ICAO recommended fuel requirements, and please remember, ICAO "30 min. fixed final reserve" is not holding fuel, it is fuel to make certain the engines are still running at touchdown.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience with 4 airlines has been that ignoring fuel policy is what gets the job done. with my previous employer, carrying flight plan fuel on every occasion would have resulted in utter chaos.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's be some QF people reading this old enough to remember Bill Robbi*. When the 747 Fleet captain (JD) accosted Bill in the crewroom many years ago now with:
"Bill, can you explain why you landed with 20 tons remaining on your last flight?"
Bill's reply said it all. "Yair, 'cos I didn't need it."
"Bill, can you explain why you landed with 20 tons remaining on your last flight?"
Bill's reply said it all. "Yair, 'cos I didn't need it."